Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Morning Links: The Deaths of One Writer, Two Banks, 31 Boys, and Countless Newspapers
• J.G. Ballard, RIP.
• The U.S. threatens war with Eritrea.
• A record fine for the Rev. Al Sharpton.
• Two more banks close down.
• Three visits from George Orwell.
• A history of abuses at the Florida School for Boys.
• Modern trends in the therapeutic state.
• A farewell to dying newspapers—in 1918.
• And from Face the Nation, here's senior presidential
advisor David Axelrod on
the tea party movement: "I think any time that you have severe
economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection
that can mutate into something that's unhealthy." A roundup of
reactions to Axelrod here. A
leftist offers a semi-endorsement of the tea parties
here.
|4.20.09 @ 7:18AM|#
That asshole Axelrod is just dripping with contempt for the
people he wants to rule, isn't he?
The tea party protests are the healthiest thing in American
politics since the Vietnam War protests.
-jcr
Kyle Jordan|4.20.09 @ 7:26AM|#
"...into something that's unhealthy."
Yes, because being upset that you and your future bloodline are
being stolen from by the power and money hungry dullards that run
this country is something that everyone should just gladly
accept.
Startin' my week off right again Reason!
economist|4.20.09 @ 8:03AM|#
"The tea party protests are the healthiest thing in American
politics since the Vietnam War protests."
Except without the hippies, Weathermen, and Yippies.
|4.20.09 @ 8:20AM|#
"I think any time that you have severe economic conditions,
there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into
something that's unhealthy."
What? You mean like a week of riots at a major party convention?
You mean like 100s of thousands of people marching on Washington to
protest a war and forcing the President to be a virtual prisoner in
the whitehouse? You mean demonstrations at campuses all over
American one of which resulted in a deadly confrontation with the
National Guard? You mean like domestic terror organizations trying
to blow up ROTC buildings? You mean unhealthy like that?
Axelrod and Emmanuel are the two most evil people in America not
currently in prison.
|4.20.09 @ 8:21AM|#
I would highly encourage everyone to read the theraputic state article. It left me speechless.
|4.20.09 @ 8:30AM|#
Except without the hippies, Weathermen, and
Yippies.
Did the weathermen actually show up at the protests? I thought they
were busy doing themselves in by incompetently building explosive
devices.
-jcr
Kyle Jordan|4.20.09 @ 8:34AM|#
John,
I was actually kind of thinking that the program may do some good
until I read this part...
"Coalinga is the flagship of a relatively new programme created in
response to public anxiety about the release of sexual predators
from prison. All the men at Coalinga have completed their custodial
terms, but instead of being released they've been diagnosed as
mentally ill, and locked up again - this time indefinitely and not
in prison but in hospital."
This begs the question, just what all can be or will be classified
in the future as "mental illness"
Very disturbing article all together.
So I agree with John here. If you haven't read this article, please
do so if you can.
|4.20.09 @ 8:35AM|#
"Did the weathermen actually show up at the protests? I thought
they were busy doing themselves in by incompetently building
explosive devices."
They showed up at first. That ended when they were going to have a
days of rage or some stupid thing in Chicago. Basically they blew
up a statute commemerating some Chicago police killed in a riot in
the 1880s and then showed up and started breaking stuff and beating
people up in the Gold Coast neighborhood of Chicago. It was great
fun until the police showed up and kicked their ass. At that point
Ayers, slithered off and went underground and the Wetherman became
the Weather Underground. They were scum in every sense of the
word.
|4.20.09 @ 8:36AM|#
"I think any time that you have severe economic conditions,
there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into
something that's unhealthy."
He's making the tea parties sound better and better.
...he sounds afraid.
''People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments
should be afraid of their people.''
|4.20.09 @ 8:38AM|#
"This begs the question, just what all can be or will be
classified in the future as "mental illness"
Very disturbing article all together."
It is very disturbing. You can clasify anything as child abuse.
Some religous person wants to home school their kids and not teach
them evolution and they are called abusors and sent to jail. If
they won't give up their views, you just classify them as "mentally
ill" and lock them away that way.
If you think pedophiles should be locked away forever, give them a
life sentence. Pretending they are mentally ill to get around the
justice system is scary as hell.
Kyle Jordan|4.20.09 @ 8:44AM|#
That's exactly what I was thinking. Only, lobotomies or forced drug regiments instead of castration.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 8:48AM|#
John,
You mean like 100s of thousands of people marching on
Washington to protest a war and forcing the President to be a
virtual prisoner in the whitehouse?
Your idea of "virtual prisoner" is odd. If you are talking about
Nixon.
He left the White House in the evening and spoke directly to
individual protestors on the National Mall.
|4.20.09 @ 8:51AM|#
"He left the White House in the evening and spoke directly to
individual protestors on the National Mall."
I didn't know that. I was thinking more of the pictures of the
hundreds of buses they put around the whitehouse to keep the
protestors out. It was a pretty grim looking sight.
The irony is that Nixon was in the process of actually getting us
out of Vietnam. Oh well, why let the facts get in the way of a good
party/riot?
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 8:54AM|#
I didn't know that. I was thinking more of the pictures of
the hundreds of buses they put around the whitehouse to keep the
protestors out. It was a pretty grim looking sight.
Sort of cuts down on the Andy Jackson inaugration part effect,
doesn't it? Spend a bit on parked busses to prevent having to buy
new furniture.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 8:55AM|#
The irony is that Nixon was in the process of actually
getting us out of Vietnam. Oh well, why let the facts get in the
way of a good party/riot?
I don't think the actual organizers wanted us leaving Vietnam with
a win. More irony, the South did not lose until the US Congress
stopped supplying them with ammo.
|4.20.09 @ 9:00AM|#
HEB,
I watched an interview with John Mellencamp a few years ago. He was
talking about how he went one of the big protests in Washington in
the early 70s as a true beleiver. He walked away pretty jaded
finding that they were just big parties and an excuse to get laid.
I am all for people partying and getting laid. But, the whole
boomer myth about the war protests being about making a difference
and all that is just bullshit.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 9:00AM|#
From the article about the CA mental hosptial:
They feel that they aren't mentally ill, that they committed crimes, for which they've done their time, and that they should no longer be locked up. They view the therapy programme as a charade, designed to keep them locked up indefinitely.
Well, duh. Medicalizing crime is rediculous. If you want to change
the sentence to life in prison, fine, but don't side step the legal
process just so the public can balance their urge to punish others
with their desire to look caring.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:08AM|#
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=1&hp
Recently released documents indicate that 2 detainees were
waterboarded more than 260 times.
I'm trying to square this with previous CIA statements indicating
that one of the suspects immediately gave up everything he knew
after being waterboarded for 35 seconds.
Either that statement [which has been repeatedly used to back up
the "effectiveness" of these techniques] was false, or the CIA
decided to waterboard someone 82 times just for fun, even though he
had already told them everything he knew.
It's also striking that the memos indicate that one suspect was
waterboarded 83 times in August 2002. I'm hoping that's
awkward sentence structure on the part of the times, because
otherwise it appears we waterboarded a detainee 3 times a
day, although we claim he gave up all his information after
the first time the technique was used.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:10AM|#
I suppose one other possibility is that we waterboarded hundreds of detainees, but in order to square that with the claim that we only waterboarded two guys, a memo was invented claiming that all the waterboarding sessions were for just those two guys. That's always possible.
Kyle Jordan|4.20.09 @ 9:20AM|#
"Can we get a fallacy name for invoking misreads of
Orwell?"
Ninteen Eight Faux?
"IT DOES NOT "BEG" THE QUESTION! IT "RAISES" THE QUESTION!"
I beg to differ.
The Angry Optimist|4.20.09 @ 9:24AM|#
Nineteen Eighty Faux it is. The linked Harper's article is full of Nineteen Eighty Faux.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 9:26AM|#
The therapists challenge their "cognitive distortions" or delusions - the big one being that children actually want sex with adults.
Statutory rape is illegal for three good reasons. First, people
below the age of consent aren't yet wise enough to weigh the risk
and benefits of sex, so the law makes them take the safest possible
route (absence). Second, there is a power imbalance between any
adult and any minor that makes consent impossible, just like in an
employee-employer relationship. Third, the risk of the minor
catching a disease or being physically/emotionally harmed by the
encounter itself is much too great to allow those encounters.
That being said, I think the doctors are over generalizing. I doubt
I was the only boy in my high school who got a aroused looking at
posters and pin ups of adult super models. Heck, we have state
mandated health classes based on the assumption that high schoolers
want sex. The doctor's unrealistic view of sexuality hurts their
credibility and might explain why only 13 of the hundreds of
patients they see actually get cured. Their "treatment" boils down
to making the patient confirm the doctor's own unrealistic denial
of teenage sexuality. They would have more success if the doctors
said, "So what if the teenages approached you? You are the adult.
You are the responsible party. You have to say no to keep them
safe."
Abdul|4.20.09 @ 9:27AM|#
John,
I used to work in a wilderness therapy program for juvenile
offenders. Our organization had 17 different facilites. One of the
facilites (where I never worked) treated juvenile sex offenders in
a program very similar to the one described in the article.
With the juvenile offenders that I worked with, we discouraged any
possession of pornography or discussion of sex. My colleages in the
sex offender program actually had files of soft-core porn to give
to the kids. The theory was that the counselors were supposed to
train the adolescents to fantasize about healthy sexual
relationships.
One big difference: no matter how badly a juvenile sex offender's
therapeutic program went, he was freed at the age of 18 because it
was a juvenile-only program.
My co-counselors seemed to think that their approach was working.
In part, with juvenile sex offenders, they are still in the
formative years of thier sexual identity. Second, most sex
offenders have a history of abuse. By putting the sex offending
teens in a residential program, many of the kids were actually
being removed from a family or enviornment where they were both
victims and perpatrators.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:28AM|#
I think that describing the Blair statement as Orwellian is a
reach, and that bit is probably included because the guy's
name is Blair [so it's kind of a bad pun on names, too].
But the other two items don't have much Nineteen Eighty Faux about
them.
[Actually, kudos for thinking that up. I think that will
stick.]
Xeones|4.20.09 @ 9:29AM|#
"Nineteen Eighty Faux." I like that.
I do not much like David Axelrod. Shut the fuck up, David
Axelrod.
|4.20.09 @ 9:29AM|#
nineteen eighty feux - i like it. I can think of at least three threads last week that required this term. I'm sure it will be very useful over the next 4 or 8 years.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 9:30AM|#
American taxpayers are funding a lavishly appointed hospital in which hundreds of child molesters and rapists can idle their days away. The annual cost to keep one person at Coalinga is about $200,000. Multiply that by the 1,500 men who would be in the hospital at full occupancy.
And California recently released hundreds of criminals early,
because they couldn't afford to keep them locked up in prison for
the full term.
|4.20.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Al Sharpton - 500k fine: But he doesn't have a penny to his name, how can he possibly pay such a fine?
The Angry Optimist|4.20.09 @ 9:35AM|#
I know that there is an immediate leap that "confining someone
with a fear = Room 101", but that's a terribly reductionist and
simplistic read of Orwell. Also, note that Winston was threatened
with a rat gnawing through his face, not merely being in a
small space with a stinging insect.
Also, you may or may not like Jay Bybee, but part of
attorney's job is to take the facts as described by his client (the
CIA, in this case) and, when prompted, discuss all the facets of
the law and where the line is. Calls for his impeachment for
describing possible interpretations under the law is
insanity.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:37AM|#
Second, there is a power imbalance between any adult and any
minor that makes consent impossible, just like in an
employee-employer relationship.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa -
You just asserted that any time somebody has an affair with their
secretary, it's rape.
You can back that shit right up and take it over to feministing
where it belongs.
And California recently released hundreds of criminals early,
because they couldn't afford to keep them locked up in prison for
the full term.
They must be lumping all the facility's capital costs in with this
initial group of patients, because there's no way they're spending
200k a person. It only costs 40k a person to keep someone on
supermax death row. Letting inmates put on talent shows can't cost
160k a year, and I doubt they have one shrink per patient to eat
that cost up.
|4.20.09 @ 9:37AM|#
"Can we get a fallacy name for invoking misreads of
Orwell?"
I was thinking the same thing. Comparing the waterboarding of Gitmo
inmates who had been captured on the battlefield to the guy in 1984
was, well, Orwellian.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 9:41AM|#
MARIANNA - The men remember the same things: blood on the walls, bits of lip or tongue on the pillow, the smell of urine and whiskey, the way the bed springs sang with each blow. The way they cried out for Jesus or mama. The grinding of the old fan that muffled their cries. The one-armed man who swung the strap.
No, that's not a discription of the pedophilia, it's a discription
of how the Florida state run treatment center for boys treated
their wards. Unfortunately, once a professional becomes convinced
he is acting in a nonconsenting person's best interest, there isn't
much to limit his methods.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 9:43AM|#
You can back that shit right up and take it over to
feministing where it belongs.
I believe any time a male has sex with a female 'rape' at
feministing.
SF, ruling please?
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:48AM|#
I know that there is an immediate leap that "confining
someone with a fear = Room 101", but that's a terribly reductionist
and simplistic read of Orwell.
The goal of the two treatments was different, but there's nothing
reductionist about comparing the two at all.
Actually, the fact that in Orwell Room 101 is not meant to gather
information, but to utterly break a prisoner's mind and make
them morally implicate themselves in the regime itself makes
us look a little bit worse, since we applied that technique to mere
interrogation.
Also, note that Winston was threatened with a rat gnawing
through his face, not merely being in a small space with a stinging
insect.
Actually, since the rats never touch him, Smith was threatened with
what he imagined the rats would do. The entire point is
that the phobic's imagination is the most powerful and insidious
tool that can be used.
Also, you may or may not like Jay Bybee, but part of attorney's
job is to take the facts as described by his client (the CIA, in
this case) and, when prompted, discuss all the facets of the law
and where the line is. Calls for his impeachment for describing
possible interpretations under the law is insanity.
If he was an attorney retained by the defense in a war crimes trial
for CIA agents, I would expect him to produce work product putting
the best possible light on his clients' actions.
But if a government attorney produces such work product as part of
a state conspiracy to commit war crimes, I have no sympathy for him
whatsoever. If someone working for a future Justice Department
wrote a memo purporting to find a legal basis for sending all
Arab-Americans to death camps, when it came time to Nuremburg
everyone involved I would not accept "I was just analyzing the law
for my client" as a defense.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Fluffy | April 20, 2009, 9:37am | #
Second, there is a power imbalance between any adult and any minor that makes consent impossible, just like in an employee-employer relationship.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa -
You just asserted that any time somebody has an affair with their secretary, it's rape.
You can back that shit right up and take it over to feministing where it belongs.
And California recently released hundreds of criminals early, because they couldn't afford to keep them locked up in prison for the full term.
They must be lumping all the facility's capital costs in with this initial group of patients, because there's no way they're spending 200k a person. It only costs 40k a person to keep someone on supermax death row. Letting inmates put on talent shows can't cost 160k a year, and I doubt they have one shrink per patient to eat that cost up.
Actually, $200,000 per year sounds cheep for a full time medical
facility. Our county run hospital charges the county over $10,000
per week per pychiatric patient. That would annualize to $500,000
per year.
Even if you disagree with the power imbalance rational behind
statitory rape laws, a minor's inability to evaluate the risks of
sex and (in the case of young minors) the physical damage they
experience from the act would still justify those laws.
|4.20.09 @ 9:52AM|#
You just asserted that any time somebody has an affair with their
secretary, it's rape.
Or maybe that anytime someone hires someone less priviledged it's
slavery. HEB beat me too it - but some people believe that
penetration=rape. They are often the same people that believe
employment=exploitation.
The Angry Optimist|4.20.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Or, alternatively, the fact that we did it against the "bad
guys" (no, I'm not defending this, I'm just saying) and don't do it
to dissenting citizens makes us look marginally
better.
As for the death camps thing...well, they just don't compare. There
is a current statute that tracks the Convention Against Torture.
Bybee did some analysis and came up with a conclusion of what is
and is not permitted under the torture statute. I mean, what if he
had merely written "Prisoners can be kept in cells that are 42
degrees"? That alone doesn't sound like torture to me, so where are
you drawing the line from proper analysis to monstrous facilitation
of Nuremburg-esque crimes?
|4.20.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Actually, since the rats never touch him, Smith was
threatened with what he imagined the rats would do. The entire
point is that the phobic's imagination is the most powerful and
insidious tool that can be used.
Fluffy you right - they don't mention that in the Cliffs notes,
though...
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 9:55AM|#
I was thinking the same thing. Comparing the waterboarding
of Gitmo inmates who had been captured on the battlefield to the
guy in 1984 was, well, Orwellian.
That's not what is being compared.
What's being compared is the use of rats on the rat-phobic Winston
Smith to the CIA's use of insects on an insect-phobic WOT
detainee.
|4.20.09 @ 9:56AM|#
I believe any time a male has sex with a female 'rape' at
feministing.
Not really. They rarely go that far.
They do, however, promote the idea of "enthusiastic consent" being
the standard for "non-rape" sexual encounters. Anything that
implies coercion (an extremely broad defintion that includes
unequal power relationships) makes "enthusiastic consent"
impossible. The boss/secretary scenario is a situation where
consent cannot be "enthusiastic" and is a form of sexual
assault.
Those interested may torture this libido with this article.
|4.20.09 @ 9:59AM|#
Two things that have come out in the past couple of days tells
me that this country is no better than the terrorist we are
supposed to be fighting against.
1) The scale of torture. Apparently some of the victims have been
tortured tens if not hundreds of times. 2). BO is arguing the
Nuremburg defense for the large scale torturers.
Nittany Cat|4.20.09 @ 10:03AM|#
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- The John Murtha airport sits on a windy
mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth
tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National
Guard training center.
Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up
to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and
supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six
pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or
private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave
the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International
Airport.
The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its
continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past
decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150
million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to
win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a
backup runway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041802128_pf.html
libertarian democrat|4.20.09 @ 10:05AM|#
I think it's fallacious to assume preteens and young teens
cannot be interested in sex with older teens and adults, never mind
each other.
Also, I may be wrong, but I think chemical castration works really
well to prevent repeat offense. Not sure it's the best solution,
but I thought it's efficacy was supposed to be pretty high.
In addition, there are pedophiles who have never offended, some of
whom eventually undergo voluntary castration. I have sympathy for
those that are attracted only to young kids, but not those that act
on it.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 10:07AM|#
Even if you disagree with the power imbalance rational
behind statitory rape laws, a minor's inability to evaluate the
risks of sex and (in the case of young minors) the physical damage
they experience from the act would still justify those
laws.
That's not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the fact
that you said that a similar power imbalance exists between
employers and employees.
I mean, what if he had merely written "Prisoners can be kept in
cells that are 42 degrees"?
I think that Bybee's is a very marginal case, but at the same time
we have to guard against the use of bureaucratic language and
procedure as a cover for the commission of war crimes, and in
particular have to avoid allowing would-be torturers to simply sham
confusion about what their obligations are.
|4.20.09 @ 10:08AM|#
But he [Sharpton] doesn't have a penny to his
name
He acts out of his pure and selfless devotion to the betterment of
mankind. Virtue is its own reward.
Kyle Jordan|4.20.09 @ 10:33AM|#
"He acts out of his pure and selfless devotion to the betterment
of mankind. Virtue is its own reward."
Holy shit...
That was hilarious!
Atanarjuat|4.20.09 @ 10:38AM|#
The bio of the guy who wrote the "enthusiastic consent"
article:
Hugo teaches history and gender studies at Pasadena City
College. His interests include men's work, youth ministry,
feminism, marathoning and vegan cooking. He and his wife are active
in the animal rights community, and help run an international
chinchilla rescue. He blogs at hugoschwyzer.net
Res ipsa loquitor.
|4.20.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Fluffy | April 20, 2009, 9:55am | #
I was thinking the same thing. Comparing the waterboarding of Gitmo
inmates who had been captured on the battlefield to the guy in 1984
was, well, Orwellian.
That's not what is being compared.
What's being compared is the use of rats on the rat-phobic Winston
Smith to the CIA's use of insects on an insect-phobic WOT
detainee.
---------------------------
But that is like comparing the fact that they FED Winston, just
like we did the Gitmo inmates, isn't it? Like "comparing" a
pedophile to someone who has consensual adult sex because they both
have sex?
Isn't the most important factor of the torture of Winston that he
is a citizen who has not been suspected of any real crime, only
"thought crime" certainly not mass murder? Surely the violent
actions of Jihadists world wide places them in a vastly different
category than "thought crimes", doesn't it? The State didn't
exactly make it up to control the population, with apologies to any
"truthers".
Isn't there a difference between "enemies of the State" or Nazis at
Nuremburg and waterboarding suspected plotters of mass
murder?
Agree or not that we should waterboard, Jihadists really do want to
kill Americans, where Winston simply did not think "right" a big
difference, at least to me. The author attempts to turn world wide
Jihad into "War with Eurasia".
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 10:39AM|#
In addition, there are pedophiles who have never offended,
some of whom eventually undergo voluntary castration. I have
sympathy for those that are attracted only to young kids, but not
those that act on it.
Fair enough. People are responsible for their actions, regardless
of what inner demons motivate them. People are not responsible for
the thoughts they don't act on.
jtuf|4.20.09 @ 10:45AM|#
Fluffy | April 20, 2009, 10:07am | #
Even if you disagree with the power imbalance rational behind statitory rape laws, a minor's inability to evaluate the risks of sex and (in the case of young minors) the physical damage they experience from the act would still justify those laws.
That's not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to the fact that you said that a similar power imbalance exists between employers and employees.
Oh, I'm glad you spoke up so I could clarify. I meant the power
imbalance is similar in direction, not magnitude. The power
imbalance between an adult and child is much greater than the power
imbalance between an employer and employee. The adult-child
imbalance is great enough to justify the law stepping in to protect
the child. The employer-employee imbalance is not nearly as great,
and if you want to legalize workplace dating, I won't object,
although I would prefer to work for a company that has a company
policy against it.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 10:56AM|#
The employer-employee imbalance is not nearly as great, and
if you want to legalize workplace dating, I won't object
Workplace dating is already legal, so there is no need to legalize
it.
But that is like comparing the fact that they FED Winston, just
like we did the Gitmo inmates, isn't it?
No, it's not.
Isn't the most important factor of the torture of Winston that
he is a citizen who has not been suspected of any real crime, only
"thought crime" certainly not mass murder?
No, it isn't. And it actually has nothing to do with the question
of whether it's appropriate to compare one variety of torture to
another. At all.
And actually, in 1984 at one point a member of the Inner
Party tricks Winston into believing he is signing up to join an
anti-party revolutionary group, and he is tape-recorded
volunteering to commit any number of terrorist acts.
So basically your argument boils down to, "I think my side should
be allowed to torture people as much as it wants, because we're the
good guys," and that is exactly why we need a war crimes tribunal -
to prosecute all the government officials who thought that and
acted upon it.
|4.20.09 @ 11:09AM|#
I would prefer to work for a company that has a company
policy against it.
Why? In my experience the workplaces who have open dating are no
different than those that prohibit except in those that prohibit,
there is lot's of secrecy about the dating and people tend to hide
other things too because it could lead someone to "think" they are
involved in a prohibited relationship even if they are not.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 11:14AM|#
I've found all my wives at the office.
I found all of your wives there too. Our chicks shure do get around
huh?
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 11:25AM|#
I met my wife in my bedroom.
We are talking real world not intertubes world.
|4.20.09 @ 11:30AM|#
William F Buckley once wrote that "pushing an old lady out of
the path of an oncoming train and pushing an old lady INTO the path
of an oncoming train both involve pushing an old lady but are
hardly morally equivalent."
Are you saying that Jihadists are on the same moral level as
Winston was, then? Or just basically "Torture is bad, M'kay, you
shouldn't torture, cause torture is bad"?
And just to clarify, are you saying that the government tricked KSM
into admitting a desire to slaughter infidels and commit acts of
terror like you describe the government doing to Winston? Since you
think they compare, I honestly can't tell.
|4.20.09 @ 11:50AM|#
HEB,
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
I met my wife for the first time in my bedroom. She was wearing a
hot pink bikini and was soaking wet. We met later that night for
chicken wings and whiskey. Started dating a few months later and
we've been together for 17 years.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 11:55AM|#
We met later that night for chicken wings and
whiskey.
Now I know this is pure fantasy!
Triumph|4.20.09 @ 12:05PM|#
"I met my wife for the first time in my bedroom. She was wearing
a hot pink bikini and was soaking wet. We met later that night for
chicken wings and whiskey. Started dating a few months later and
we've been together for 17 years."
That is so cool! A very delightful outcome for you and yours. I bet
she looked absolutely hot in that hot pink bikini! And wet to boot!
Awesome. That is one of the most sexy, romantic "How We Met"
stories I have ever heard.
For me to poop on!
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 12:45PM|#
William F Buckley once wrote that "pushing an old lady out
of the path of an oncoming train and pushing an old lady INTO the
path of an oncoming train both involve pushing an old lady but are
hardly morally equivalent."
Right. Except that has nothing to do with what we are talking
about.
Are you saying that Jihadists are on the same moral level as
Winston was, then?
No. I am saying that once you say it's OK to torture people who are
planning to commit terrorist acts, then you've made it possible for
Inner Party types to offer that same justification.
Or just basically "Torture is bad, M'kay, you shouldn't
torture, cause torture is bad"?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
There is no level of violence I would not be willing to impose on a
fighting enemy who is still in the field. But there is also no
level of violence I am willing to impose on an enemy who has
surrendered and is in a cage. Period.
So if the old lady is my enemy and is free and in the field, I
would be happy to shoot her in her fucking face. But if the old
lady has surrendered and is in a cage, I am not willing to beat
her, or shock her, or subject her to sensory deprivation or sleep
deprivation, or starve her, or freeze her, or waterboard her, or
put her in a box and pour tarantulas into the box. Sorry. And if
you ARE willing to do those things, and occupy a government
position, you are a tyrant and I would be morally entitled to KILL
YOU [like an enemy in the field] until you stop.
And just to clarify, are you saying that the government tricked
KSM into admitting a desire to slaughter infidels and commit acts
of terror like you describe the government doing to
Winston?
Um, no. I'm saying they both sincerely had that desire.
Smith was only "tricked" in the sense that he thought he was
talking to revolutionary, and he wasn't. Other than that, his
statements about being willing to carry out violent acts was
true.
You may think that Smith was a "good" potential terrorist and that
Al Qaeda members aren't. And I would agree with you. But that
doesn't matter, because if you say "torture is bad when used on
'good' terrorists, but not when used on 'bad' terrorists" then
every government in the world that wants to torture will think
you've given them the green light. To the state, all
terrorists are bad terrorists.
JB|4.20.09 @ 12:50PM|#
All you little whiners keep leaving out who was waterboarded so
many times: KSM.
The main person responsible for 9/11.
I personally don't think the US government should be torturing many
people, but the absolute guilt and absolute knowledge that KSM had
made him the perfect case. Torture should be reserved for cases
like his. If we are willing to kill thousands of people, I have
very few issues with inflicting pain on a few terrorist
masterminds.
JB|4.20.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Oh, if the US ever captures Osama alive, I am pushing for a
Constitutional amendment to actually torture him (as opposed to
harsh interrogation).
If that hurts your vaginas, even better.
|4.20.09 @ 12:53PM|#
I met my wife for the first time in my bedroom. She was
wearing a hot pink bikini and was soaking wet.
Dang, SugarFree, you work fast.
Charles|4.20.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Are you saying that Jihadists are on the same moral level as
Winston was, then? Or just basically "Torture is bad, M'kay, you
shouldn't torture, cause torture is bad"?
And just to clarify, are you saying that the government tricked KSM
into admitting a desire to slaughter infidels and commit acts of
terror like you describe the government doing to Winston? Since you
think they compare, I honestly can't tell.
...
All you little whiners keep leaving out who was waterboarded so
many times: KSM.
The main person responsible for 9/11.
So every single person who was detained, we are 100%, are
terrorists committed to a million WTC attacks? I simply don't
believe it.
And (ignoring the principle that we shouldn't torture any detainee,
for any reason) I don't believe that if we let them start torturing
the worst of the worst, that it will be reserved solely for the
worst in the future. That is how these things work.
|4.20.09 @ 1:22PM|#
I think any time that you have severe economic conditions,
there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into
something that's unhealthy.
This is a bigger-vocabulary version of Obama's "bitter" and "cling"
comments back during the primary season. No one should be
surprised.
|4.20.09 @ 1:39PM|#
"And if you ARE willing to do those things, and occupy a
government position, you are a tyrant and I would be morally
entitled to KILL YOU [like an enemy in the field] until you
stop."
So, you favor the death penalty for government officials who commit
mild torture on suspected terrorists or only vigilante "justice"
upon the same?
If that isn't "Orwellian" I don't know what is.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 1:48PM|#
So, you favor the death penalty for government officials who
commit mild torture on suspected terrorists or only vigilante
"justice" upon the same?
If a government becomes tyrannical, any individual subject to that
government has the moral right to revolution.
Revolution, in case you did not notice, consists of killing
representatives of the state until the state gives up.
Read the Declaration of Independence, it might help you out here a
bit.
There have been many periods of American history - maybe the
majority of it - when the US has not possessed a legitimate
government, and aggrieved parties and their supporters would have
been morally entitled to commit acts of revolution, if they chose
to do so. Are we in one of those times right now? I leave it to you
to decide.
|4.20.09 @ 2:42PM|#
I am quite familiar with the Declaration. I doesn't appear that
you are, however. Except perhaps to twist it as a tool to justify
your moral preening about "torture".
Are you then claiming that ANY "tyranny" no matter how small should
equate to VIOLENT Revolution? Is that the impart of the
Declaration? If you can claim "victimhood" from government it gives
you carte blanch to kill members of the same? You are attempting to
practice moral relativism. The Declaration hardly places ALL or ANY
"tyranny" as a justification for revolution. You appear to read the
Declaration as Anarchy writ large, ie, if I am unhappy for any
reason that justifies "revolution" and violent revolution at that.
Clearly most people do not see it that way, nor did the
Founders.
And what about trials for the alleged torturers? You mean, "after
they were found guilty by the OJ jury" right? Even if found guilty,
removing them from office would suffice, or even sending them to
prison but death?! A civilian would get 5 to 10 but a government
official deserves to die?
In other words, you SEEM to be saying that if a Jihadist tortures
someone in the name of Allah, they deserve the protection of the
Constitution, where none would be executed, but if someone tortures
in the name of protecting the innocent they deserve death according
to the Declaration? Tyranny and all that?
Mike Laursen|4.20.09 @ 3:06PM|#
I'll concede it's arguable that waterboarding isn't torture because it causes no permanent harm, but slamming somebody's head into a wall?! How could one possibly argue that is not torture?
|4.20.09 @ 3:07PM|#
One would think that the Founders handling of the "Whiskey
Rebellion" would indicate that they did not believe that ANY or ALL
"tyranny" as a basis for Revolution, which is what you are
incorrectly claiming.
Indeed the Declaration has a considerable list of grievances,
instead of an undefined "tyranny" that is basically "I didn't like
that", as being the basis for Revolution.
Mike Laursen|4.20.09 @ 3:11PM|#
For those of you who aren't from California, Coalinga is a little shithole town with a vaguely dirty sounding name in the central valley about halfway between San Francisco and L.A. It's where people stop to get gas and Burger King when driving between the two cities on a very boring highway. And it's also home to a giant, stinky stockyard that, through sheer chutzpah, is promoted as a second-rate golfing resort destination. You have to understand all of that, to realize how being made a detention center for sex offenders just adds to the place's charm.
Mike Laursen|4.20.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Just to clarify, you don't golf in the stockyard. The golf course and hotel is about a mile down the road.
|4.20.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Just to clarify, you don't golf in the stockyard.
In that case, fuck it; I'm cancelling my reservation.
Fluffy|4.20.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Are you then claiming that ANY "tyranny" no matter how small
should equate to VIOLENT Revolution?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that any tyranny creates the moral
justification. One might have any number of prudential reasons for
not taking advantage of that moral justification and actually
engaging in that revolution.
Example: Any one of the Japanese-Americans interned during WWII had
the moral right to resist the state with violence. They did not,
for any number of prudential reasons: personal fear, knowledge that
any such resistance could not succeed, a belief that the situation
would right itself in the end, a belief that the likely outcome of
resistance would be even worse, a belief that the governments with
which the US was warring were even worse, etc.
But make no mistake: all persons subjected to injustice have the
moral right to resist it. It's really very straightforward, to the
point of being nearly tautological. Even if most of the time they
will not choose to do so.
You appear to read the Declaration as Anarchy writ large, ie,
if I am unhappy for any reason that justifies "revolution" and
violent revolution at that.
No, I don't. My view is that the state can have no moral authority
to commit unjust acts. [Again, this is nearly a tautology.] The
range of legitimate state actions in any situation is actually
generally quite narrow.
Another example: any individual in the United States from 1783 to
1865 who chose to engage in violence against the state as a result
of the slavery issue would have been morally justified. Why?
Because the use of the state apparatus to support the slavery
system delegitimized that state apparatus in its entirety.
And what about trials for the alleged torturers? You mean,
"after they were found guilty by the OJ jury" right? Even if found
guilty, removing them from office would suffice, or even sending
them to prison but death?! A civilian would get 5 to 10 but a
government official deserves to die?
State officials can have trials, if they resign from their offices
voluntarily. But if they hold on to their offices and continue to
participate in a conspiracy to employ the police power in an
illegitimate fashion, then: BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG.
but if someone tortures in the name of protecting the innocent
they deserve death according to the Declaration?
It's a very morally problematic and dangerous business, to be an
instrument of the state. I'm sure there were lots of very nice guys
serving as policemen and serving in the armed forces in, say, 1859,
and if a slave rebellion had occurred and all those guys got their
throats cut, you might say, "Oh, these were all such nice men, did
they deserve to die just for signing up to serve their country?"
Well, yeah, they kinda did. Sorry. Their government would have put
them in the moral wrong, and if they were not aware of that it's a
tragedy but doesn't really change anything.
|4.20.09 @ 10:15PM|#
Second, there is a power imbalance between any adult and any
minor that makes consent impossible, just like in an
employee-employer relationship
Hold on, there. You're doing some package-dealing here that I have
to reject. What you're doing is infantilizing anyone who ever
engages in a relationship with someone they work with.
-jcr
|4.20.09 @ 10:34PM|#
Wow,
So Fluffy holding court against a plague of torture apologists
trying to invent a new "Godwin" category for those who accurately
make an Orwell comparison. What a cesspool H & R has
become.
And JB, maybe it will one day be your sister or daughter's vagina
we are talking about once you've proudly achieved your apparent
goal of making torture globally acceptable again.
|4.21.09 @ 3:24AM|#
# Mike Laursen | April 20, 2009, 3:13pm | #
# Just to clarify, you don't golf in the
# stockyard. The golf course and hotel is about
# a mile down the road.
The above would have more visceral punch if it said "...a mile
downwind."
I have driven past this area and "visceral reaction" doesn't begin
to describe the effect.
jtuf|4.21.09 @ 5:05AM|#
John C. Randolph | April 20, 2009, 10:15pm | #
Second, there is a power imbalance between any adult and any minor that makes consent impossible, just like in an employee-employer relationship
Hold on, there. You're doing some package-dealing here that I have to reject. What you're doing is infantilizing anyone who ever engages in a relationship with someone they work with.
-jcr
jcr, please read my post at:
jtuf | April 20, 2009, 10:45am | #
Where I resolved the same question with fluffy. I meant the power
imbalance was similar in direction not, magnitude.
|4.21.09 @ 8:19AM|#
Fluffy, your comments reveal that you are not interested in
"Revolution". You have NOT described how "a new form of government"
is to be created, only if you don't like something it equates to
"tyranny". This is patently absurd.
So while you want to execute politicians you don't like, you
haven't expressed a "revolutionary" spirit, only an anarchist one.
You have simply acted as a Libertine, not Libertarian, in that
anything you don't like you equate with "tyranny" and believe it
morally justifies killing anyone associated with government.
Claiming that this has a moral basis, and attempting to drape it in
the Declaration is quite juvenile, but that is the self-identified
"Libertarian" anyway, isn't it?
Your statement that "well, the cops DESERVE to die" is a clear
indication of your opinion of LAW, and an absolute evidence that
you are clearly NOT a person to lecture anyone about "morality"
since you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word, or at
least lack any personally.
Morality is NOT "I do what ever I want", in spite of your apparent
belief that it does.
You would destroy America so that you could preen as being 'moral'.
How simply "good" of you. The way you would sacrifice your life to
stop tyranny...oh, you didn't really mean that YOU would make any
sacrifices for the horrible tyranny that you believe should result
in war crimes. You simply meant that you would tattle on the evil
government people, and maybe shoot them from a safe distance,
since, in your highly attuned state of morality, you know who
should die and who gets to live. All based, not on your own
personal desire to do anything you wish, but because of the human
liberty espoused in the Declaration of Independence, of course. You
CARE about LAW and America and really aren't making these claims
because of personal desires, but because you are a moral crusader?
Please.
You see, the Founders risked their "lives, fortunes and sacred
honor" upon Revolution, while you seem to only be risking your
Reason posting rights.
I will be expecting to read about the "Fluffy Revolution" in the
near future. Since it is your moral duty, right?
Fluffy|4.21.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Gill, first of all, you need to educate yourself on the
difference between a moral right to do something and a moral duty
to do it.
Second of all, you basically just offered as your counterpoint that
it would have been wrong for pre-1865 slaves to rebel, because it
would have required them to kill military personnel and police, and
to defy "law". Is that actually the opinion you're offering here
today? Because if it is, you have absolutely nothing to offer with
regard to this discussion, and we can effectively call it a
day.
So while you want to execute politicians you don't like, you
haven't expressed a "revolutionary" spirit, only an anarchist
one.
Wrong. An anarchist believes that it is impossible for a moral
government to exist. I don't believe that at all.
You, on the other hand, appear to believe that ANY government,
regardless of the actions it takes, is legitimate and beyond
reproach, because it represents "law". And to that I have to say:
Go fuck yourself.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245